| admitted equipping three hecklers with microphones and sending them in
|
Posted on 04/23/2005 4:14:34 PM PDT by Recovering_Democrat
BBC PLANTS HECKLERS TO DISRUPT UK CONSERVATIVE RALLY... DEVELOPING... The BBC was last night plunged into a damaging General Election row after it admitted equipping three hecklers with microphones and sending them into a campaign meeting addressed by Michael Howard, the Conservative leader.... MORE...
CSPAN replayed the BBC's interviews with the three primary candidates for Prime Minister in the UK. The name of the "news" hack was Jeremy Piven, or something like that.
Michael Howard--the conservative--by far received the most vitriolic, asinine, rude treatment of any of the three candidates.
Tony Blair, to be sure, likewise, got a rude treatment...but not as rude.
Treated with kid gloves was the Liberal Democrat candidate for PM: CHARLES KENNEDY. (Coincidental, ain't it, that a Kennedy is the leader of Liberal Democrats?)
As more Brits get dishes, the BBC will be as small as PBS.
The Bolshevik Broadcasting Company, wot?
Wow. The BBC may have just single-handedly elected the Tories.
What did Tony Blair know and when did he know it?
Do you recall that story when BBC executives bashed the US media for skewering coverage of the Iraq war, after they pulled that atrocious stunt on Blair saying he lied etc.. with no evidence and fabrications rife throughout resulting in the suicide of a gov worker? They are unbelievable. We need to abolish NPR and PBS before something like this happens!
Media-once-again-showing-true-colors BUMP
And it can't happen soon enough!
| admitted equipping three hecklers with microphones and sending them in
|
The British people are forced to pay a tax on their television sets to support this nonsense. I'm sure you could get members of both British parties to agree to "major reforms".
BBC Motto: We Heckle, You Decide!
Lets keep legs under this story, the BBC need to be on the
front page as long as possible over this.
If you have a tv set you're required to pay a BBC license fee of about $300 per year whether you watch it or not.
What an outrage!
No. Our news networks don't tinker with them small potatas. They send their guys straight behind enemy lines to coddle the terrorists.
Blair may be a liberal but in many ways he is more of the Scoop Jackson-mold than your garden-variety socialist. My impression of Blair is that in a one-on-one discussion, he would not veer into the standard name-calling but would actually try to match "fact" for "fact."
I give a benefit of the doubt to Blair due to his unpopular but resilient Irag/terrorism stance.
That being said, I would certainly be happy if Howard was to take the cake. If Howard doesn't then I could at least still stomach Blair.
I thought Jeremy Piven was a Hollywood actor?
BBC "NEWS" is shown nightly in the US on PBS. Does that mean US Taxpayers are also paying for this broadcast?
Jeremy Paxman.
Blair is an opportunist primarily concerned with the survival and glorification of Blair .. sound familiar ?
I saw most of all three interviews. From what I saw, he was equally abrasive with all the candidates (his normal style). I certainly do not believe that he treated Charles Kennedy any easier than the rest.
To be blunt, they all looked like losers.
Isn't PBS primarily funded by individual donations and educational institutes? That is a lot more legitimate than a public broadcaster (BBC) competing with private companies...
Now, if Howard were to propose eliminating the tax, or severely reducing it, that would be something.
Are you serious
Let me get this straight if you dont watch BBC world news watch SKY news you have pay tax to brit govt support BBC news
That outrage
Why Brit govt keep support BBC news????
I think Brit has other news organization like ITN World news Sky news and others
You are right Ray rumor has it ole Rupert want bring SKy news to Dish network and Direct TV subscribers he been talking about
Personally I rather watch Sky news than BBC world news on PBS
Only good thing about BBC is Brit comedies Masterpiece theatre and Mystery
Rest of it SUCKS
Rackkkk Sky news
Blair's fault
:o)
It wasn't a news report that was being filmed and the filming wasn't being done by a BBC news crew, but for a BBC 3 programme - BBC 3 is a non-news channel.
Silly thing to do though at this time of an election campaign.
"Wow. The BBC may have just single-handedly elected the Tories."
This may cause some media froth, but will have precisely zero impact on the views of real people.
I think they should go further than asking for an apology. I would think they should call for the sacking of the news chief for the BBC and the senior producer of political coverage.
They may well have. Our media is the absolute epitome of bottom feeders.
I have never witnessed anything more pathetic than when I attended a cocktail party in Washington DC a few years ago attended mostly by Liberals and mainstream media types. It was hilarious to see the Liberals fawning over some fellow Liberals from the UK.
After about 3 stiff drinks, the American Liberals started talking with phony British accents. It was sort of like watching a Madonna video on crack.
Not likely any time soon. The Brits are forced to pay a TV "license" for any televisions they own. This money is turned over to the BBC - whether the hapless television owner actually watches BBC or not.
So the Brits are forced to support Communism.
I used to think that some people on non-news BBC programs were alright. In fact, I used to like watching Jeremy Clarkson on BBC's top gear - a really cool car show. I liked Clarkson right up until the day the idiot appeared on the show wearing a Che Guevara tee shirt. What an ass.
So now there is nobody worth watching on the BBC.
Go here for explanation or google BBC + licence + fee
http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/licencefee/
Excerpt:
Your TV licence
Each household's colour TV licence cost £9.67 every month in 2003/2004. On average each month, this was how the BBC spent your money:
We have different impressions, then. I thought he was much more accomodating to Charles Kennedy than he was to Howard or Blair.
And don't you have to pay for every goggle box you've got?
No, just once for the household.
Being a Yank in America I don't know the details. I do know they have trucks loaded with electronic gear which scan homes without licenses to see if they really have tv sets. People violating the law can be imprisoned.
Pinging a Brit for confirmation and elucidation.
No need to abolish them. That would be un-American.
Just make them take their hands out of the American taxpayer's pocket.
If FOX News did this, it would be all over the network news for days.
And I thought the American Lamestream Media was bad. They're bastions of objectivity and judiciousness compared to the BBC. My sympathy to the British people.
This sort of thing is nothing new. In the 1964 presidential election, NBC News brought their own demonstrators to the Republican Convention in San Francisco.
PBS Decline
Today, PBS is in trouble. Government funding has not kept pace with rising costs, especially those associated with the digital transition. Worse, public support is on the wane. Between fiscal years 1993 and 2002, public TV memberships declined by 20 percent, from five million to four million . A recent survey indicates that this trend has accelerated to a five percent loss in each of the past two years.
The loss in memberships reflects a loss in viewers. In 1987, PBS had a rating of 2.7. This dropped to 2.2 by 1992, 2.0 by 2000 and 1.7 by 2002; 37 percent over 15 years and 15 percent in just the last two. While all broadcasters have lost viewers to cable, the commercial networks own their own competition and have been able to increase advertising and raise rates to maintain their revenue base.
In an attempt to meet expenses, PBS and its member stations also have followed this path to greater commercialism. Five-second underwriting acknowledgements have expanded into 30-second commercials, including pitches on children’s programs for junk food and theme parks. There are more co-production deals with commercial partners looking for lucrative back-ends. Such programs typically are designed for export and, consequently, are less local or even national in character. Also, PBS sought and the FCC granted permission to use two of PBS’ digital frequencies for revenue generating purposes.
Despite these compromises, PBSrevenue has been falling almost three percent per year since 1993. In the past two years, PBS has downsized its staff three times, cutting its total workforce by 25 percent. PBS tried to make up its shortfall by increasing member station dues by 7.5 percent. The stations, themselves challenged, balked and PBS had to settle for a three percent raise which it plans to use for Masterpiece Theatre and Antiques Roadshow.
Need for a Public Broadcasting Trust
Clearly, a new approach is required. My organization, Citizens for Independent Public Broadcasting, advocates that public broadcasting in the U.S. be restructured as a public trust, along the lines of the U.S. Olympic Committee, Red Cross or Little League Baseball. In our view, innovative, diverse, noncommercial programming for both national and local TV and radio audiences would require at least $1 billion per annum. Most of this would go for TV, far exceeding the $300 million per year now being spent. This programming fund would be supplemental to current levels of operational support from state governments, individual subscribers, and foundations. Corporate donations would still be welcomed, but would be briefly acknowledged and restricted to general system support. There would be no more upscale commercials masquerading as enhanced underwriting spots.
No need to abolish them. That would be un-American.
Just make them take their hands out of the American taxpayer's pocket.
---
Of course. Thats what I meant. Sorry for the misconception. I guess I am just assuming they will likely abolish themselves without government subsidies. :)
We have liberal idiots at work who insist on listening to NPR in the break room- All day last Friday (Earth Day) we had to listen to bull$hit about global warming and what it is doing to the climate. As if it were all proven fact.
DEFUND NPR
The LEASET they could have done is present the opion of those who believe otherwise.
Rush pointed out something interesting- It is only SUCCESSFUL CAPITALIST countries who can afford luxuries like environmental cleanups. Poor countries (who pollute the most- go to Mexico and see some of it) are too busy trying to feed themselves to be able to add additional costs onto their production.
Yes the worst pollution ever existed under the communists in eastern europe and russia. The pollution of state owned companies is causing riots in china.
It's all as you say. How ironic then, for environmentalists to ally themselves with the left.
It needs to be made clear that there are two types of pollution: the bad kind that leftist countries produce that kill people. And the good kind that capitalist countries produce the most of that don't kill people - in fact, trees breath it - CO2.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
Wanna bet they got this idea from one of our own "news" networks?